Go to page

Expert Member

Yes ... and no. Example: The politics comes into it when certain groups like our politicians see this as an opportunity for self enrichement doing the right thing, sabotaging solar power, while pushing for nuclear power stations we can't afford. The default setting of people is that anything associated with it is wrong. The facts are these guys will use a lot of legitimate studies, but then also slip in a few poison apples. which sets the stage for their marketing while something else would have been more appropriate. People discount everything, not just the poison apples, but also the other real studies. While I use us as an example, other similar motives exists.

How and why you select what circumstances you regard as significant or not is most certainly a function of your intellectual predisposition in which basic philosophical assumptions and belief structures play a part.

As with all Libertarians, the assumption that the market will sort it out does not hold true.
A typical example is the Construction industry and the impact of Health and Safety legislation.

The market was happy for decades to continue with no regard for the safety of its workers. Deaths occurred in the 100's per year and since the cost of improving the safety of its workers was overlooked because of the focus on profits, there was no will within the markey to improve such conditions.

The evil governments decided this was enough and enacted various forms of acts and legislations that have set requirements on companies to account for Health and Safety and provide various measures. The fatality rates have dropped by several large percentages, to just a few.

Expert Member

I actually found that quite entertaining and thought provoking. It's always good to listen, question, check, learn new stuff ...
As the guy himself said - he's in construction by trade. But then again I've also heard highly qualified and degreed specialists spew drivel that even the blind would see.

Expert Member

How and why you select what circumstances you regard as significant or not is most certainly a function of your intellectual predisposition in which basic philosophical assumptions and belief structures play a part.

I agree, hence my observation. I would posit that your reasoning on that matter was wrong. Your reasoning may have been ever so influenced by your conservative ideology as such reasoning aligns and conforms with the conventional conservative view on the matter.

Expert Member

I actually found that quite entertaining and thought provoking. It's always good to listen, question, check, learn new stuff ...
As the guy himself said - he's in construction by trade. But then again I've also heard highly qualified and degreed specialists spew drivel that even the blind would see.

Honorary Master

I agree, hence my observation. I would posit that your reasoning on that matter was wrong. Your reasoning may have been ever so influenced by your conservative ideology as such reasoning aligns and conforms with the conventional conservative view on the matter.

That my reasoning "may have been ever so influenced by [my] conservative ideology" is a charge that needs to be supported, lest the same assertion be made about your reasoning and its alignment with progressivist causes.

To avoid becoming hopelessly entangled in a multitude of aspects of what is really a very complex issue, let's start with you first posit: That my reasoning on that matter was wrong. How so? I am very open to learning, preferring dialogue to rhetoric and point-scoring - as I trust do you.

You do realise how unscientific, anti evolutionarily your argument is. The anti vaxxers have far more kids than highly intelligent lefties and only some of them die. Seems like Intelligence is bad for evolutionary fitness.

Expert Member

That my reasoning "may have been ever so influenced by [my] conservative ideology" is a charge that needs to be supported, lest the same assertion be made about your reasoning and its alignment with progressivist causes.

To avoid becoming hopelessly entangled in what is really a very complex issue, let's start with you first posit: That my reasoning on that matter was wrong. How so? I am very open to learning, preferring dialogue to rhetoric and point-scoring - as trust do you.

You believe that the evidence that past climate changes have occurred demonstrates that the current one (if we can agree there is one currently taking place) is occurring on the same basis, i.e. non Anthropogenic reasons.

I would say that that reasoning ignores that the previous climate changes occurred without the humans as part of its "equation". The current environment has had to endure the impact of humans somehow.

So the current climate has an additional element in the equation that is incomparable to previous climate changes. So to say because we had previous ones before, explain the current one speaks to ignoring the potential impact humans have.

My understanding is humans have had an effect and the effect is beginning to be understood and there is research to demonstrate that the effect has caused some changes.

I do think it is at a rate less than what some of the reports say. I think the change is more a mid-term than a short term event (i.e. 50 years as apposed to 10).

Expert Member

You do realise how unscientific, anti evolutionarily your argument is. The anti vaxxer has far more kids than highly intelligent lefties and only some of them die. Seems like Intelligence is bad for evolutionary fitness.

Honorary Master

As with all Libertarians, the assumption that the market will sort it out does not hold true.
A typical example is the Construction industry and the impact of Health and Safety legislation.

The market was happy for decades to continue with no regard for the safety of its workers. Deaths occurred in the 100's per year and since the cost of improving the safety of its workers was overlooked because of the focus on profits, there was no will within the markey to improve such conditions.

The evil governments decided this was enough and enacted various forms of acts and legislations that have set requirements on companies to account for Health and Safety and provide various measures. The fatality rates have dropped by several large percentages, to just a few.

People still chose companies to build for them regardless of how many people they killed. They did it for countless decades. Construction companies were not disbarred from bidding on projects because they killed 10 people on the last job.

The market (people like you and me) chose the companies.

The evil government said hold on a minute, why are you killing so many people. Lets put this law and act in place. In countries that did this, the change was observed almost immediately.

Looking at unregulated construction industries, such as Qatar, where they have killed hundreds on the construction of the football stadia, the market has chosen to keep with them.

Honorary Master

People still chose companies to build for them regardless of how many people they killed. They did it for countless decades. Construction companies were not disbarred from bidding on projects because they killed 10 people on the last job.

The market (people like you and me) chose the companies.

The evil government said hold on a minute, why are you killing so many people. Lets put this law and act in place. In countries that did this, the change was observed almost immediately.

Looking at unregulated construction industries, such as Qatar, where they have killed hundreds on the construction of the football stadia, the market has chosen to keep with them.